The fresh draft guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board on October 6, 2021, brought about a number of key changes into the previous guidelines issued for EPR activity by the board in order to create a circular economy for plastic waste. While the broader perspective of who falls under the category for EPR – brand owner, manufacturer/ producer or both is transparent, a number of organisations are still contemplating if they fall under the ambit of EPR if they are producing plastic for a brand owner. The answer is a resounding YES and for the following reason.
In order to explain why a producer of plastic will fall under the purview of EPR, let us take an example of a producer of plastic making pet bottles of prerequisite sizes for a brand owner. During the manufacturing process of pet bottles as per his/her client’s specification(s), plastic waste is generated. It is this plastic waste that eventually lands up in the landfills or areas managed by Urban Local Bodies of a certain state. Under the guidelines issued for EPR, this plastic waste can only be collected by an authorised waste collector, who will then dispose of the waste so generated in compliance with PWM rules.

e.g. 100 ton raw material
processing waste 10%

Finished product – 90 ton

Therefore the manufacturer is liable under EPR for 10% processing waste not the 100 ton raw material purchased. EPR liability for the 90 ton finished product supplied to brand owner devolves to brand owner.

A number of manufacturers/producers of plastic often question how they are liable if they have handed out the plastic bottles or products to a brand owner. They are not liable for EPR for the products /bottles they have supplied to a brand owner. However, they are liable for the waste generated in the manufacture of that plastic product.
In addition, based on the plastic produced by the producer of plastic, and in a particular geographical zone of the country, a producer of plastic will often have a different working mechanism for EPR compared to a brand owner. This also means that the process in the pollution control board, based on their presence, would also differ. But, similar to a brand owner, a manufacturer/producer of plastic will also be liable for Extended Producer Responsibility.

Numerous studies conducted globally have highlighted ‘single-use’ plastic as the devil incarnate and held this material responsible for the tsunami of waste worldwide including the “Pacific Garbage Patch”. Governments worldwide in response have banned or are banning ‘single use’ plastic. Circular economy the buzzword of the day is driving a push towards use of recycled plastic in packaging, with major companies committing to reduce or eliminate use of virgin plastic. The race is on to find sustainable alternatives to “SUP’s”. Alternative sources such as wood, paper and metal are also being considered at micro and macro scales in order to find a sustainable permanent resource. Across the spectrum be it malls, supermarkets, restaurants, fast food eateries or other establishments, plastic based serving products are being replaced by wood, paper or metal.
While these items, being “green” resources, are popular, the question remains if they are environmentally friendly. Green Alliance, a UK-based think tank which has been working since 1970s to find sustainable energy solutions submitted in their report in January 2020 that while these ‘green’ resources have a short-term role in mental satisfaction to various brands, the carbon footprint is higher than plastic. It is not due to the disposal or usage where the ‘environmentally friendly’ factor plays a role, it is, in fact, in manufacturing of such products that the greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions are higher.

The report by Green Alliance suggests that a number of consumers are confused between the alternatives to plastic and admit that they may have banned single-use plastic in haste, that the alternatives are affecting the environment in a much larger scale. The report also emphasises that some of the consumers of plastic also agree that the packaging technology innovations can be a competitive advantage in this climate change and also suggests to have a much stronger authoritative body that could bring out a permanent solution to this conundrum behind single-use plastic. The report aptly titled, “Plastic is the tip of the ‘single-use’ iceberg” also has excerpts from industry experts who suggest the following methods.
The External Affairs Director at SUEZ Recycling and Recovery, UK, Adam Read said,” “If we aren’t careful, short term decisions could cause longer term problems for establishing a true circular economy. As the war on plastics continues to rage, avoiding unintended consequences should be at the forefront of everyone’s minds, and that includes government, industry and, of course, consumers. Change must be managed and planned if we’re to move towards fully closed-loop systems for recycling and, more importantly, reuse. That means we need to think much more carefully (and quickly) about how materials like compostable plastic are introduced. We must ensure a system where they are used where they make sense and in a way that people will understand to limit contamination and leakage.” Libby Peake, Senior Policy Adviser on resources at Green Alliance added, “The public are right to be outraged about plastic pollution. But what we don’t want is, a few years down the line, for them to be outraged about new environmental problems caused by the alternatives. We need to address the root of the problem, our throwaway society. Companies need much more help from the government to tackle plastic pollution without making climate change and other environmental impacts worse in the process.”

While plastic is the touted as the evil behind the landfill problem faced globally, the alternatives to plastic are not a permanent or sustainable solution in the long run. These alternate solutions eventually will affect the environment due to a higher carbon footprint and is not a sustainable solution to the problem of plastic. In addition, if plastic is fully recycled and circularity achieved, the objective of sustainability can be reached. Having said that, plastic, even if it represents only six percent of total waste, poses a severe problem contributing to landfills globally and needs decisive but structured solutions to address the problem.

Over 18 trillion tonnes of combined waste is currently spread all across the world. This waste includes plastic as well as non plastic items. Plastic waste contributes to just six percent of the total waste, but, why is this one element to be blamed for all the waste that is contributed by other materials. The fact of littering and not segregating the waste on micro level such as residences is a problem area. Although the quantity through each residence is less, however, the segregation at source if followed at this level will solve a lot of problems for collection agencies authorised through Urban Local Bodies. As the number of residences all across the country is exceedingly high.

In February 2021, Hindustan Unilever Limited announced that they will become plastic neutral recycling 100 percent of the plastic they send out in the retail market. In the year 2020, Vahdam India became one of the first companies in the tea industry to get a climate neutral certification. They plan to buy carbon credits and by 2024, go plastic neutral. Large companies are doing their part through various recycling methods such as Extended Producer Responsbility (EPR) under Plastic Waste Management (PWM) Rules 2016, amended in 2018 issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) under Section 5 of the Environment Protection (EP) Act, 1986.

Plastic neutrality is a move that is required by all existing organisations using plastic, however, using non-plastic items for packaging is not possible at this stage globally. Steps are being taken, research is being done and some pilot projects are being worked upon. However, at this stage, the use can be minimised or recycled.

Every plastic packaging product that is used for packaging today is not from completely virgin plastic and recycled plastic is also utilised creating a circular economy. But, the road to plastic neutral is a challenging and long one. Initial steps have already commenced, however, like the proposals now being raised in Spain, Italy and the UK, plastic should be additionally taxed when used for packaging whether recycled or virgin and by 2022, this taxation is expected to be implemented.

Coming back to the idea of plastic being a necessary evil; It is undoubtedly true that plastic is a commodity that would take eons to disintegrate yet affect the environment in a negative way. So, until the time an alternative is not evolved, packaging material should be ideally segregated at source.

Imagine a community wherein waste is segregated at source having 1000 residences with each residence generating one kg of combined waste each day. This would mean 30,000 kg or 30 Metric Tonnes of combined waste that is segregated at source. Micro-segregation at recycling factories would not be required thereby increasing the productivity of any recycling factory.

This is just an example, so take the case in point wherein, similar to bulk waste generators, this thumb rule is also followed in residences? How much of waste could be recycled more effectively? A thought to ponder upon!

In a recent visit by the Norwegian Ambassador to India, Ambassador Hans Jacob Frydenlund & Director General, Centre for Science and Environment, Ms. Sunita Narain applauded the efforts put in by Nationwide Waste Management Services Pvt Ltd, emphasising on the core need of segregation at source and baling of waste material into the correct streams is imperative. The measure of waste generated is ever increasing all over the world and segregation as well as baling are one of the initial steps to a scientific waste disposal/processing system.

The first step involves going back to the drawing board and training the staff about the importance of segregation at source. This is done by Nationwide Waste Management Services’ trained personnel under their ‘Train the trainer’ program. Separation of waste at source saves valuable time for any authorised waste collector and is the cornerstone of the Solid Waste Management Rules 2016. Getting segregation done at source, whether a hospital, mall, banquet or any waste generator also increases awareness & importance of the same.

After collection from the generator, micro- segregation occurs at an authorised Material Recycling Facility (MRF) employing a mix of machines and manual labour. Stream segregated material is then baled (compressed ), wherever applicable, and stored in specified sections of the facility, marked for each type of waste. Then, it is sent to respective recyclers, duly authorised by Urban Local Bodies or Central Pollution Control Board for disposal or recycling based on the type of waste.

Although it may seem unreal, it is a fact that glass takes longer than plastic to decompose. It may take up to 1000 years for plastic to fully decompose, glass can take up to a million years. Irrespective of type of waste, the awareness for segregation and recycling is the need of the hour and the stepping stone to bringing about a cleaner environment for our future generations.

Producers, Importers and Brand Owners (PIBOs) who are sending out plastic and electronic waste are now responsible of recycling at least 30 percent of the total plastic quantity through a recycler or service management firm authorised by the Urban Local Bodies. The environmental protection strategy under EPR has the sole objective to decrease the total environmental impact by any PIBO. Now, the onus is on them to divert plastic waste from landfills by ensuring its collection while creating/encouraging a circular economy for the plastic sent out in the retail market.
PIBOs have been made accountable for the plastic introduced by them and to achieve this they have to register with Central Pollution Control Board or State Pollution Control Board under the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016.

Climate change is a reality and this exercise is gathering pace globally, with PIBOs being held responsible for the plastic and e-waste being sent out into the retail market. Only through these actions, will the impact of plastic and e-waste be mitigated.

-Dr. Gurinder Sambhi
Director, Nationwide Waste Management Services Pvt Ltd

“We have considered the matter. We find difficult to pass further orders on the applications. The matter pending before the tribunal already stands disposed of. Internal dispute of departments is to be resolved at the administrative level. Jurisdiction of the tribunal is to provide remedy to a victim for environment protection against action taken in violation of norms,” a bench, headed by NGT Chairperson Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, said. “Rules are in force which have to be followed.”

The green panel also said that it was leaving the issue to be dealt by the authorities concerned without expressing any opinion on merits at this stage.

The saturation of the Ghazipur landfill site and the non-availability of alternative land to manage garbage had prompted the EDMC to move the NGT.

The EDMC moved an application urging the DDA be directed to hand over a piece of land at Sonia Vihar and a plot at Ghonda Gujran for solid waste management facilities on a priority basis. Advocate Balendu Shekhar, appearing for the EDMC, had said the two plots were approved and appraised by the CPCB and it should be handed over to the corporation for handling solid waste.